Ho See Beng
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether he is aware that each time re- settlement takes place, the business houses or firms suffer a terrible loss. Although the HDB could provide them with alternative shop premises, they have to rent them from the HDB.”
“Sir, I want to ask a supplementary question with vested interest. This concerns a teacher who upgraded himself or herself and got admitted into the University, but the teacher has got to forgo his or her salary. In the case of an SAF officer, if he is sent to the University, he does not have to sacrifice his salary.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask whether the Minister will consider giving incentives to consumers who read their own meters?. I ask this question because it will save PUB a substantial amount of money by way of salaries for meter readers, if the PUB succeeds in teaching consumers how to read their own meters.”
“But before I could explain the relevancy, I was interrupted by the Member for Anson, who stood up and denied that he had ever said anything about supplying me with such a list.”
“Sir, as I have said, I intend to appeal to the Minister for National Development whether he will consider giving priority allocation of flats to the Blair Plain residents who will be resettled by PSA soon.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when the House adjourned at 8.00 pm last night, I was reminding the Member for Anson that I have yet to receive his list of Blair Plain residents whom he claimed to have attended his meeting and approached him for assistance on the matter pertaining to resettlement.”
The complete record
Every one of 839 lines we hold for Ho See Beng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 17.
“Sir, in view of the Minister's statement that there is a possibility that the cost of water will be increased, has Government explored the possibility of installing machinery to desalt sea water?”
“Sir, is it correct to say that it is a loss because it is a service to the public and not a trade?”
“If that is the case, the word "adequate" is not very appropriate.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after having read the Select Committee's Report, I think I am more than convinced that the system of trial by jury is not workable, particularly in our multi-racial and multi-lingual society. But that does not mean that we should not allow opponents to the Bill to disagree with us. Let me put it this way. If we had planted a tree straight, we need not worry about the moon shadow that it reflects, even if the shadow were a little bit bent. So why should we worry that so-and-so, an opponent of the Bill, held a rally in Fullerton Square? Whether the system is workable or not depends on the attitude of man. And I also say that even if we had a wonderful system but the attitude of that man was hostile to the system, he would say, "No, no, this is rubbish." So we should not worry about that. Here I would like to recall what the author of My Country and My People, Dr Lin Yu-Tang, said. He said that some people even regard the moon as more beautiful if you look at it from the West. If you have men with this attitude, whatever you do, they will say that it is wrong. So I think it is good for the Prime Minister to tell Mr Marshall, "Go ahead and hold a rally in Fullerton Square." I find there is nothing wrong in that. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 5.35 p.m. Mr Marshall, or any opponent of this Bill, can say that the P.A.P. is undemocratic. To this, I say, "Let such people accuse us of being a little bit undemocratic. But nobody can accuse us of not being pragmatic." Mr Speaker, Sir, I share the feelings of the other Members of this House on this Bill. 5.36 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, if we assume that all the projects mentioned by the Minister just now are to be carried out, how many medical officers are required for these projects?”
“Mr Tay Boon Too asked the Minister for Law and National Development (a) how many residents along Airport Road have applied for permission to have entrances from the Road to their houses for vehicles; (b) how many of those applications have been (i) allowed; and (ii) rejected, and the reasons for the rejections; and (c) why have the authorities of Hong San School been refused permission to have an entrance at Airport Road for the convenience of the pupils.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we must not forget that we are a socialist Government, and looking after the well-being of all our citizens is not the job of a Member of Parliament. Mr Lim Kim San:Sir, we are not going to allow further charges on the public funds if we can help it. UPPER PAYA LEBAR ROAD WIDENING PROJECT (Compensation and resettlement of residents) 8. Mr Tay Boon Too asked the Minister for Law and National Development (a) how many residents along Upper Paya Lebar Road are affected by the widening of the road; (b) whether any compensation has been paid to those residents; and (c) what plans have been made to resettle them. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law and National Development (National Development Division) (Mr Ho Cheng Choon) (for the Minister for Law and National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, my answer is: (a) A total of 301 squatters are affected by the Upper Paya Lebar Road widening project extending from Upper Serangoon Road to Airport Road; (b) Of this number, 129 cases have been settled so far and a total of $35,672 has been paid to those affected. Action is still being taken to deal with the remaining 172 cases; (c) The Housing and Development Board will provide alternative accommodation in its housing estates for those affected unless they elect to find their own accommodation. AIRPORT ROAD (Vehicular access to houses) 9.”
“Sir, I think the Minister has not understood my question. I said that if a child is born outside Singapore of a resident citizen of Singapore, why cannot he be made a resident of Singapore as of right, and why must his application be subject to further consideration by the Immigration Department?”
“Can the Minister explain why a child under six years of age of a citizen cannot be given permanent residence in Singapore as of right, and why his application is a matter for "consideration" by the Immigration Department?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, at the outset, I must congratulate the Government on introducing this timely Parliamentary Pensions Bill for the Members of Parliament who will have to retire in the course of time. The Government is concerned about their future, as the Minister for Finance has said that the Prime Minister and other Ministers have been underpaid. But if you look at the provisions in the Bill, it provides a pension of only one-thirtieth of the annual salary of the retired Member of Parliament. I would have thought that something like 50 per cent would be justified, but not one-thirtieth of the annual salary, which is a paltry sum. Sir, I think you will agree with me that in our neighbouring countries, a Member of Parliament has a lot of opportunities to make money. But in the case of the M.P.s in Singapore, especially the P.A.P. M.P.s, there is nothing for them and they cannot do anything at all. That is the reason why I say that the Government should give more consideration to increase the quantum of pension. The other point is: why must the Government choose the magic figure of ten years' service in order for an M.P. to be able to qualify for a pension? Why not bring it down to eight or nine years? Although one parliamentary term is five years, I feel we should be more realistic. If we accept this Bill without amendment, it means that an M.P. has to be three times lucky before he can qualify for a pension. 3.09 p.m.”
“That is what I am going to say, if the Government is so confident about it, why not hold a referendum, especially when there is no Opposition? Lifting the Whip is only an eyewash. Thirdly, why do the Government not allow the Parliamentary Secretaries a free vote as well? The fourth question is, who are going to be appointed to the Select Committee on the Abortion Bill? If the Minister's cronies are appointed, the opponents of the Bill are done for. The fifth question is this. Does the Abortion Bill also apply to foreigners who come here? They will know about it and come here. The Minister should clarify this point. My last question is about the ceiling of the fee. What is it? Is it $5? If it is $5, and there is no stipulation in the Bill to prevent foreigners from taking advantage of this Bill, then our medical staff are going to be worked to death. I think it is reasonable for the Minister to provide some safeguards against this in the Bill. Another question is, how can the Minister check against illegal abortions, since the Bill is drafted in such a way that abortion is given not as of right or as of demand? How will the back-street abortionist be checked? 4.20 p.m.”
“It cannot be solved by doctors wielding curettes. In conjunction with my suggestions here, I have also a few questions to ask. Of course, the Minister may say this is not Question Time and that I cannot ask supplementary questions. My first question is this. Is this Bill needed in Singapore? According to both the present Minister for Health and the former Minister for Health who spoke with such vigour, how many investigations had been carried out before this Bill was introduced? Can the Minister tell us how many supporters there are in Singapore who are behind this Bill? The second question is - An hon. Member: Have a referendum!”
“It is a reasonable fear which the Government has not effectively dealt with by sponsoring a Bill which supposedly liberalises the law relating to abortion and, at the same time, does not effectively deal with the mischief which it is supposed to remedy. In taking a stand against the Abortion Bill, I am convinced that any little gain from liberalising the law on abortion will be more than offset by the losses. I am in complete agreement with Professor Tow Siang Hwa who suggested at a forum in the University of Singapore recently that the population in Singapore can confidently be solved and any future anticipated explosion can be averted by the following steps: Firstly, a redoubling of the present family planning effort with greater attention to personal contact and follow-up. Secondly, post partum tubal ligation after the third delivery. Thirdly, an educational programme ainied at all levels of society, stressing the benefits of family planning and the truth about abortion. Not just tell the public the bad aspects of abortion by the illegal abortionists and keep quiet about the risk of abortions done in the hospitals. That is not fair. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 4.20 p.m. Finally, to meet the socio-economic pressures contributing towards abortion, Family Welfare Bureaux should be established to dissuade women from seeking abortion and to arrange for financial assistance and the adoption of "unwanted" babies. Legislation should be introduced to ensure greater security of pregnant women in terms of maternity leave with pay and maternal benefit, conditional on the multiparous recipient being sterilised after confinement. Abortion is a complex and deep-rooted social and economic problem, its solution requires social, economic, medical and educational measures.”
“I wish to comment on sub-clause (1) of clause 10 where it is provided that a person may refuse to participate in any operation to terminate pregnancy on the ground of conscientious objection. This provision is weakened by placing the onus of proof in any legal proceedings on the person who raised the objection. Further in sub-clause (3) of clause 10, the whole purpose of providing for conscientious objection is nullified by requiring that such a person may nonetheless be compelled to participate in any abortion when it is necessary to save the life or prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, and no provision is made to determine the criteria for assessing whether such an opinion is valid or not. The last provision to which I have just referred serves to substantiate my contention that the Bill is not designed to rationalise the laws relating to abor tion but rather to give effect to the Government's policy of promoting birth control, if it is the intention to have a Bill to liberalise the laws relating to abortion, it would have been better for the Bill not to restrict the grounds on which abortion may be performed but to control and regulate the persons by whom or the manner by which abortion is to be performed. With the impression that the Bill has an ulterior motive of promoting birth control, it is legitimate for persons with religious principles to fear that this Bill is a forerunner of other Bills which seek to legalise the murder of persons who cease to be capable of making a useful contribution to the life and econonly of the society in which we live.”
“But my point i5 that our society has not degenerated to such a level and that our laws must not be fashioned to facilitate the development of our society on the basis of promiscuity. This is particularly more so in a secular Republic in which we must be tolerant of and must give consideration to religious people as well as those with religious convictions, particularly those who subscribe to the Christian religion that the sanctity of life is inviolable even in the case of a newly conceived foetus. Sir, here I would like to say that I am a free thinker. I have no reigious bias. To them the termination of the existence of a foetus is just as heinous an offence as the killing of a human being, except when it is necessary to save the life of the mother. They have every reason to object in so far as the Bill appears to have, as an ulterior objective, the control of population growth. The Bill conveys an impression that it is designed for population control. I myself do not believe it. Nevertheless, it is the fault of the Bill. Even the Minister's supporters say that this Bill is good for population control.”
“Regarding the objection of a certain section of the public to the Bill on religious grounds, I am aware that some Members of this House may take the worldly stand that in the rugged society of Singapore, religious principles have no relevance where such principles are incompatible with the political and economic development of Singapore. To such persons who have made success their god, it is natural that religious principles may be dismissed as super stitious beliefs. All the same, it is very much to be regretted if our society is to be developed along the lines that the amount of respect to be accorded to any principles is to be determined in terms of money that the principles can earn for us. If such a society was already a fact in Singapore, I would have no hesitation in saying, "Let us have abortion by all means." Judging from my own personal observations of the manifestations of the beginning of such a society in Singapore, there is apparently a great need for the liberalisation of the law on abortion to minimise the consequences of promoting a barnyard standard of morals. With the number of social escort agencies sprouting all over the island, it must be admitted that tourism is becoming more of a bedroom pastime. It, therefore, becomes necessary for us to enact legislation to get rid of our ill-conceived fruits of pleasure-cum-industry. Facts are facts and since we pride ourselves on our pragmatic approach to life, we must face the fact that if Singapore is to develop along the lines of the shanty towns which flourish around foreign military bases in Thailand and the Philippines, any objection to the Bill would merely be of academic value.”
“Evidently, it was a desperate measure taken by a people whose culture and temperament had bred other desperate practices such as hara-kiri and kamikaze suicide techniques. But the population problem m Singapore is nowhere like the post-war Japanese situation. Our birth rate has been steadily falling since 1959 from 39 to 28.6 per thousand in 1966. The rate of fall has accelerated even further since the formation of the Family Planning and Population Board and the birth rate for the first six months of 1967 shows a 13 per cent fall over the same period in 1966. There would appear to be no cause for alarm and for the adoption of desperate measures such as abortion. Sir, in advocating abortion for socio-economic reasons, the unborn child is regarded as a social inconvenience and economic burden. Projecting this reasoning a step further, legalised euthanasia or so-called mercy killing would become equally acceptable. Why should society be burdened with the aged, the mentally defective, the physically handicapped and the chronic incurables? Then how about legalised suicide? An equally good case can be made out for it. Think of the many painful and cruel methods of self-destruction, not infrequently unsuccessful. Should we not legalise it, have proper institutions to ensure swift, certain and painless demise for those who feel that they are no longer of use to society? At least, Sir, we can obtain their consent, unlike in abortion where the subject has no say in this matter.”
“I continue with my quotation: 'During 1962 when there was an estimated number of 2,800 therapeutic abortion operations carried out in National Health Service Hospitals, four deaths following therapeutic abortion were registered with the Registrar General and three of these were the subject of confidential enquiries.' Quoting again from the same report with regard to immediate morbidity resulting in abortion: 'Non-fatal serious complications occur in not less than 3 per cent of cases of legalised abortion induced by experts under modern conditions, and morbidity rates as high as 15 per cent are reported. Immediate complications include haemorrhage, rupture of the uterus, salpingitis, peritonitis, septicaemia, renal failure, thrombosis and embolism.' Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the risks and ill effects of legalised abortion apparent in these quotations, let us not forget that the operation, even when done in hospital, is not without risk. With regard to arguments in support of socio-economic abortion, the success of the Japanese effort is often quoted as an example. Sir, I would like to quote Professor T. Kobayashi, of Tokyo University, who in reviewing the position of Japan says: 'Our serious concern was to overcome a population explosion brought about by a loss of land and repatriation of the Japanese disarmed forces, accelerated by the usual postwar boom produced by new marriages and reunited families. The situation was worsened by a tremendous decrease of food production and chaotic social conditions in our destroyed land.' Professor Kobayashi said that out of 1,026 women who had undergone induced abortion, 68 per cent showed some kind of regret and fear of the experience.”
“1964. If it is over a period of 20 years, then it is no surprise. Mr Chua Sian Chin: You were not listening.”
“' The reason why I am quoting this is that the other day the Minister mentioned several cases of women with unwanted pregnancies, but he did not state over a period of how many years that the cases were recorded at Kandang Kerbau Hospital.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the explanatory statement to this Bill, treatment to terminate pregnancy may be carried out, subject to certain safeguards, by registered medical practitioners acting on the authority of a Board (to be called "The Termination of Pregnancy Authorisation Board") on medical, social, humanitarian and eugenic grounds. However, I would like to remind the Minister for Health of a recent statement by Dr Hector Maclennan, President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Britain, made in the Times of 21st January, 1966: 'Leaving out of account the difficulties which may be associated with the decision to terminate a pregnancy there still remain problems as to who should perform the operation, who should give the ansthetic and where it should be performed. Even if the operation is to be limited to hospital practice by recognised specialists it should be stated most emphatically that therapeutic abortion even in skilled hands is more dangerous than the public and many doctors appreciate. This is especially so with a woman, pregnant for the first time.' Here again I would like to refer the Minister for Health to an article entitled Legalised abortion: Report by the Council of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists from which the following quotation is taken. 'In Scandinavia operative rates for legalised abortion initially varied from 0.9 to 3.5 per thousand cases; more recent figures put the mortality rate for Denmark at 0.7 per thousand which is still nearly three times as high as the present mortality rate (including abortions) for England and Wales. Mortality rates of 0.3 to 0.6 per thousand reported from countries in Eastern Europe are difficult to reconcile with experience in Northern Europe and in Britain.”
“Let us assume that I can bring forward a person with sufficient proof to the Government. Will the Parliamentary Secretary then give an assurance that this man's application for citizenship will be sympathetically considered?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it appears that the Parliamentary Secretary is stressing on the point that granting citizenship to the applicants might deprive Singapore citizens of jobs. What happens if the applicant does not seek a job or depend on one in Singapore? Will the Government consider his application if he has the qualifications to apply for citizenship? Mr Sia Kah Hui: Sir, this is only a hypothetical case and I think we can only consider each individual case on its own merits.”
“Is the idea of allowing a foreigner to invest $250,000 in Singapore so that he can come here and become a permanent resident an original idea of the P.A.P. Government, or is it copied from other countries in the world?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance says that the provision of quarters to civil servants by the colonial Government was a bad practice. Will the Minister agree with me that the P.A.P., a socialist Government, should adopt a good practice?”
“A point of clarification, Sir. Just now the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs said that Singapore will even extend its hand of friendship to some of the unfriendly nations. Will the Minister inform this House which are the unfriendly nations?”
“Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir,I am sure I did not complain of the 15 per cent tax on imported made-up garments. In fact, I agreed with the Government. What I complained of is the 10 per cent levy on P.U.B, bills.”
“With the new PUB, rates, I can foresee great hardships for large families with small incomes. Likewise, I can see increased hardships for rural folks engaged in subsistence farming, as well as for hawkers and small business proprietors. Contrary to what the Minister has claimed, I am quite convinced that the new P.U.B, rates will be regressive and the lower income earners will be hit most. Further, this is the second time in two years that the Government has decided to increase P.U.B, rates. The poorer class of the economy is definitely not going to react favourably to this. Instead of increasing public utility rates, I would propose increased indirect taxes on the higher income earners, such as the property-owning class. There is, for example, no reason why people living in mansions and bungalows should not be asked to pay a little more on the assessment rates for their property. Likewise, increased road tax could be levied on bigger vehicles owned by the higher income group. In other words, it will be more fair and equitable if the $11 million could be raised from taxes on luxury items enjoyed by the higher income group. Surely, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not asking too much from a socialist Government. 3.41 p.m.”
“This, however, has been made possible partly by the defence fund campaign which has raised nearly $10 million, a measure which the Government was indeed farsighted enough to have taken to forestall painful tax measures. However, there is one item in these new tax proposals which is not beyond criticism. The Minister for Finance's arithmetic on public utilities consump tion does not appear to be very convincing. It appears that the Minister has conveniently divided the different economic classes of Housing and Deve lopment Board flat dwellers according to the amount they pay in their monthly PUB, bills. If a couple is working as teachers and their total salary is, say. $1,000. They stay in a Housing and Development Board fiat, their P U.B, bill for two persons surely will not be more than the bill of a poorer family consisting of a husband, wife and eight small children. The imposition of a tax on essential services really deserves a more realistic and equit able criterion to back it up. Surely a family consisting of ten persons will use more water and electricity than a couple.”
“They manufacture motor cycles but their parent company in Japan will not allow us to export these locally-made motor cycles for sale in Japan or even to any other country for sale there so long as the parent company of Yamaha has established a market there. In other words, the motor cycles manufactured in Singapore can only be sold to the local people. Or we have to find new markets in the international field. Therefore, instead of earning foreign exchange, we are losing foreign exchange because we have to use our foreign exchange to buy machinery and raw materials, if the Government is not careful in selecting investors and allow any Tom, Dick and Harry to come in, I think it is not helpful to our economy. Sir, if we can make successful inroads into the home markets of foreign investors, which the Puerto Ricans and the Japanese have achieved in the United States, then perhaps the future of our industries could be more secure and certain. Secondly, what is the implication of this deficit in respect of our overall balance of payments and foreign exchange position? What is most perturbing about this deficit is that it has cropped up in the midst of the British withdrawal, which in itself will have considerable adverse effects on the balance of payments position. Sir, I now wish to draw the attention of this House to the proposed tax measures introduced to meet increased expenditure on our defence commitment. Generally, the Government is treading very skilfully in this matter. The proposed tax measures on the seven items mentioned are expected to raise $35.8 million in a 15-month period. The burden of these taxes, in aggregate, will not be really heavy on the economy as a whole.”
“Firstly, what is the implication of this deficit in respect of our manufacturing industries? As our manufacturing sector has to depend almost entirely on imports for its raw materials, plant and machinery, is this a sign that we are unable to export enough to pay for the purchase of these imports, which if allowed to continue in the long run, will mean that our industries are not actually self-generating and will run into a dead end and be doomed to failure? What is the position of our exports in the competitive export market? Much publicity has been given by our Government to the numerous trade pacts and trade missions which we have carried out in our export drive. But, sadly, hardly any substantial information has been given in regard to the extent of the success of these efforts. Further, are there any other avenues for us to boost further our export sales to secure improvement in our trade balance in the short and; long run? Sir, I refer in this context to the home markets of the foreign industrialists now operating in Singapore. Our Government has provided very generous concessions and innumerable incentives to foreign investors. But, are these same foreign investors and their governments willing to open their home markets for our products? It is a well-known fact that parent companies and governments of foreign subsidiaries, in their own interests, are often quite unwilling to open their home markets to the products of their foreign subsidiaries. Here, I would like to give an example. For instance, the Yamaha motor cycle manufacturing company have a factory in Singapore.”
“I would be happy if the Minister for Finance could clarify whether this figure represents the value of real growth in gross domestic expenditure, over and above the increased cost of living, or the rate of inflation in the economy. In other words, the crucial question here is, has our standard of living really increased? With our new industries at their infant stage and the protection accorded them, an increase in the cost of living would appear quite inevitable. Many locally produced goods are by no means cheaper than those imported formerly. In fact, many items have actually become more costly. But this increased cost can only be justified provided the net income generated locally and foreign exchange earned or saved by our new industries is greater than the increase in cost to local consumers if the establishment of the new industries has resulted in such increased cost. For in such a situation increased cost will be offset by greater increase in income and net addition to gross national product, and our standard of living will have actually improved. The Budget statement presented by the Finance Minister would certainly have been more meaningful had it provided a breakdown of figures of the position of industries to show that such a positive effect has actually taken place. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is another grey area in the Finance Minister's statement which needs to be clarified. I refer to the ominous substantial trade deficit of $960 million which our economy suffered in the first nine months of this year, which the Minis ter has only seen fit to mention but not explain. A deficit of this size is certainly not a feature of a buoyant economy. In the absence of facts and figures, one could only speculate and arrive at many implications.”
“So let us not deceive ourselves. The world may not be able to survive a full-scale war among the super-powers, but it can afford a hundred wars among the small nations. We must be realistic. We must be equipped for our own defence in the eventuality of a small nations' war and, if possible, in partnership with our other immediate counterparts in the Commonwealth. Mr Speaker, Sir, under the circumstances, the Government is certainly right in having given priority to defence expenditure in the new Budget, and I am in complete agreement with the Government's decision and the Finance Minister's explanation regarding the annual expenditure on defence, which is $314 million or near ly a quarter of the total Budget expenditure. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I draw the attention of this House to the Minister's comment on the state of the economy of Singapore? As in the previous year, the Minister's statement on the gross national product and economic growth sounds most encouraging and optimistic - Gross Capital formation up by 17 per cent and gross domestic expenditure up by 7.7 per cent over the previous year. Trade has also surged upwards by 14.5 per cent, although there is a considerable deficit balance of $960 million. This is really very surprising to me. I would be inclined to be as optimistic as the Finance Minister had it not been for the fact that figures quoted without qualification can prove to be most puzzling, especially for the public. I refer in this respect to the 7.7 per cent increase in gross domestic expenditure quoted by the Minister, which he said was associated with the rate of investment in fixed assets undertaken by the economy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, "painless" has been the keyword used by the press to' describe the Budget statement presented by the Finance Minister. There has also been all-round applause and praise from the tycoons of the various Chambers of Commerce and the business community. But the views of the ordinary man-in-the-street the workers and the wage-earners - have yet to be heard. Sir, as a trade unionist, I am from the second category and I will speak my mind dispassionately. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would, like to join, with some reservations, the Chambers of Commerce and the business community in congratulating the Finance Minister on having presented a com mendable Budget statement. There should be no doubt among us of the need for Singapore to have an adequately equipped defence system of its own capable of meeting any possible eventualities on a limited scale. I do not wish to sound belligerent. This is an age where things are most unpredictable and events change most rapidly. ASEAN was formed hardly one year ago; today it shows signs of crumbling. Indonesian confrontation came as suddenly and unexpectedly as the present estrangement of relations between Malaysia and the Philippines. So is the sudden and 'dramatic turn of events in the Vietnam war. So it may be for Singapore and our perdition if we allow ourselves to be caught un awares. Despite the United Nations and the balance of terror among the nuclear power nations, mankind is far from having achieved the elimination of war among peoples and nations. The super-powers can restrain, or even connive at conflicts on a limited scale among small nations, but they cannot, even in their own interests, prevent a localised conflict if one of two, or both, small nations are determined to have it out on the battlefield.”
“Will the Parliamentary Secretary kindly throw some light on the removal of anomalies in the assessment rates -whether they will be revised upwards or downwards.”
“If that is the case, does the Parliamentary Secretary presume that this good relationship will continue in the future? If it does, is there any possibility of abolishing the two Industrial Arbitration Courts so that a lot of money will be saved for the Government?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to find out from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour whether it is because of the arbitrary power that the Government has given to the employer to dismiss workers, or whether it is really due to the Employment Act that the relationship between the employer and the employee has improved.”
“Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour state what was the reason for the fewer strikes during this period?”
“' Sir, I do not believe that any enligtened employer will object to these protective provisions, because he will not abuse the powers that are, as the Minister has said, restored to him. Sir, in the case of dismissal, there is an avenue for appeal under the pro-visions of the Employment Bill when it becomes law. The dismissed employee may appeal to the Minister through his union. If the employer feels that the dismissal cannot be justified and in order to obviate the risk of ministerial intervention, he will effect the dismissal as "retrenchment" it is only calling it by another name - on the pretext of "reorganisation". This can happen. As the amendment stands today, the Minister will be in no position to intervene and wield the much publicised "big stick". Sir, these are my reasons for asking the Government to consider giving some form of protection to workers by means of restrictive clauses designed to prevent abuse of the provisions by employers. 4.23 p.m.”
“It is the criterion for the termination of service which only is precluded from the purview of negotiation or arbitration. In some ways, it may be even cheaper for an employer to retrench his serving employees and save whatever compensation is due to them, because the amount so paid up will be more than recouped by the subsequent savings from employing new and cheaper labour. Further, the employer can always retrench employees every two years and eleven months and thereby pay no severance benefits. Such a situation is not as far-fetched as the Government would have us believe. It is because of the distinct possibility of such malpractices and abuses that I urge the Government to provide more safeguards for workers. The protective clauses I seek are: '(1) Where the union feels that the retrenchment is justified, both employer and union make a joint application to the Arbitration Court to determine the issue. This should be determined by the President sitting alone. While the issue is under the Court's jurisdiction, the employer may go ahead with the implementation of the re-organisation or retrenchment. The Court's decision, when handed down, will determine whether the retrenchment was justifiable or not.' Sir, it will neither cost the employer anything nor will retrenchment be delayed, but such a provision will prevent abuse. '(2) Where retrenchment has been effected and upheld by the court or where the union has agreed that it was justifiable, the employer is free to engage new staff to fill the vacancies within six months from the date of retrenchment. If the employer finds it necessary to recruit staff, then he shall offer the appointments to those who have already been retrenched.”
“I do not wish to imply that all employers are anti-labour; neither are they pro-labour. It therefore stands to reason that there must be some employers who will not hesitate to exploit the provisions quite blatantly and, under the guise of reorganisation, create redundancy where none exists in order to retrench some of their employees. Here I would like to quote an example to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour who was an editor of a newspaper before. He knows that if a sub-editor is made to read the proof, at the stone, there will be redundancy in the proof-reading department. That kind of reorganisation cannot be justified. If a part of the proof-reading job is taken over by the "stone" editor, the proof-readers will lose their jobs. I do not doubt that the Minister knows all about this. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent such employers from engaging their relatives or friends a few months after their alleged reorganisation to fill the positions previously held by the retrenched employees. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no intention to take steps to negative this clause, but I do ask the Government to qualify this clause with protective sub-clauses so that no employer may be able unjustly to exploit it. As the proposed amendment now stands, an employer may effect a retrenchment and the union may only discuss the terms of severance pay for those retrenched employees who have more than three years' service. The Employment Bill, which was read a Third time yesterday, makes provision for the payment of such retrenchment benefits should the union and the employer agree on the benefits to be paid. The issue can obviously be referred to arbitration.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise not to oppose the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill; neither do I completely support it. It is obvious that the Government has good intentions for moving the amendments. I think the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill has the same motivations as the new Employment Bill. It would, therefore, be superfluous for me to go into the whys and wherefores for the introduction of this amendment Bill. But I will not be discharging my duty as a Member for Parliament with labour interests at heart if I do not point out the objectionable portions of the Bill as they appear to me. These amendments seek to vest in the management absolute power and a completely free hand in dealing with the employees without any real safeguards for the interests and welfare of the workers. Such are the provisions of this Bill that even the most scrupulous of employers would be stupid not to take advantage of them to the detriment of their employees. In the overall interest of the working class, the dangers and threats posed to their security by this amendment Bill must be squarely faced in the hope that employers would also rise to the occasion and not abuse the absolute managerial functions handed to them in this "silver statute". I wish to seek a further amendment to this Bill, but it is obviously not possible because neither I, nor my colleagues from the unions, have given notice. However, I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister the necessity of further protective measures in the provisions of clause 5 of this Bill. Sir, I refer to new subsection (2) (d) of section 17 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance relating to termination of service on the grounds of redundancy and reorganisation.”
“Sir, I agree that we need talent. But I think these talented people should also be considerate. When the country is in difficulties, they should make sacrifices. Just because they are talented, they should not get everything. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, I want to make it clear that I do not grudge Government's proposal to increase the salaries of Superscale officers. My point is that at this juncture when the Government is asking the private sector to make a big sacrifice, is it wise for the Government to increase the salaries of those who are well provided?”
“As for the arbitrary figure of 28 days' leave for hospitalisation, I need only say this. Even the doctors in the hospitals are clearly shocked. They say. "What rubbish is this 28 days!" This provision lacks not only research on the matter but shows a complete absence of common sense. Mr Speaker, Sir, my other trade union colleagues have said, "We are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices, but not without assessing the precise nature of the sacrifices we are called upon to make." If I am asked to make sacrifices, like returning to work half-way through sickness or from treatment in the hospital, at least I am entitled to question the wisdom of such a demand. Clause 47 is the controversial bonus clause removing bonus payments to workers. I need not have to elaborate much on this. The other day I asked the Ministry of Labour if it could give me any good reason for the Government's interfering with free negotiation on bonuses between trade unions and the management. There seemed to be no satisfactory answer. We in this Chamber have to take full responsibility for any repercussions that may arise as a result of this Employment Bill. Let us not be hasty about passing it; otherwise it will be a case of acting in haste and repenting at leisure. I ask the Minister to consider seriously the amendments that will be moved by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee. These amendments have been tabled not so much to increase benefits for the workers as in the sincere belief that they will remove any discontent from the minds and hearts of the workers and they will rise to the occasion and give of their utmost in the interest not only of themselves and their children but of the nation as a whole. 5.40 p.m.”
“Yes. We too were responsible to some extent! Now I wish to touch on clause 43 (annual leave) and clause 44 (sick leave). The Bill purports to standardise annual heave at a flat seven days and 14 days irrespective of the type of job a man does. I am all for standardisation of benefits as between industrial and non-industrial workers. But why has the Minister not taken into account the prevailing practice in the public and private sectors whereby the employers, of their own volition, grant leave up to a maximum of 21 days - and even 21 days for the industrial workers? In the first place, have the civil servants in the Ministry of Labour compiled statistics on this matter? I am certain that they have not done so. On what research has the Minister based seven days' and 14 days' leave provision other than on the demand of a few local employers? Can he prove to this House that irrespective of the nature of the work a man is engaged in, 14 days' annual leave is absolutely sufficient for a worker at the age of 50 or 50 plus? Similarly, Sir, on the sick leave provision, where are the Minister's facts and figures to show abuse amongst employees in the private sector? For instance, I myself work for a big private enterprise and my employers have never had occasion to complain to me or against me as a trade union president that my colleagues who work with me take excessive medical leave or that they are malingerers. How many complaints has his Ministry received from private sector employers to this effect? If so, who are the employers? What is so magical about the 14 days' intermittent medical leave? Presumably the Minister has taken advice from medical experts on averages. If so, would he care to reveal the details of any such study?”
“Now I wish to draw the Minister's attention to clause 42 - for all this, of course, the present Minister for Labour is not responsible; the former Minister for Labour is responsible.”
“The Government must induce confidence in the working class if it wants them to give up some fringe benefits. It can only do this by seeing to it that the employers also play their part by expanding their industry and providing more employment. If this is not done, then disillusionment must set in and the propaganda of the Communists will provide an alternative for industrial unrest. Sir, let us not forget this point. Workers alone cannot be held responsible for the economic well-being of the country. Employers, and others, too, must be called upon to play their role and, if necessary, the Government should enact laws to compel investors to plough back some of their profits into industry annually. If this is not done, then what will happen is that while the workers have sacrificed fringe benefits, investors make more money and unemployment increases. The Communists will be able to exploit the situation and we will all be in trouble. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on some of the clauses here. What I cannot understand are the precise reasons for the introduction of some of the new provisions in the Bill. Let us consider at this stage the exact nature of the new clauses introduced, such as clause 15, which seeks to fix the age of retirement for all and sundry at 55. The Hon. Minister in his policy speech did not adduce one single reason why this should be so. What is it that the Government hopes to achieve for the country through the introduction of clause 15? What medical evidence, if any, has the Minister to be so categorical that a person should retire at the age of 55 as opposed to any other age? As for the ill effects of the clause on all concerned, I think enough has been said by my colleagues. I need not elaborate.”
“Are the foreign capitalists also prepared to plough back some of their profits into expanding the industry and helping us to reduce our unemployment? This is very doubtful. I have mentioned that capitalists in the nineteenth century exploited the workers and ploughed back their profits into industry not because they had sympathy for labour but because of their selfish motive to make still more money. But this evil motive did, in fact, bring good to the country. More workers were employed and industry expanded. The workers in these countries today are-really reaping the harvest made possible by the sacrifices made by their fore-fathers. Can the Singapore Government assure us that the employers who are now given advantages by the introduction of this Bill will do what the capitalists did in the countries I have mentioned, that is, plough back their profits into industry? I am not asking the investors to sacrifice their profits, but I am only asking the employers to reinvest their money so that they can make more money and at the same time reduce our unemployment figure which stands at nine per cent today in the active labour market. Every year there are 20,000 school-leavers and in five years there will be 100,000 young adults who should have been absorbed in industry. Our workers are not beyond understanding of these problems. The sacrifices asked of them must be worth while and they will be prepared to make more sacrifices, if necessary, if they are assured that their children will reap the harvest as a result of their sacrifices today. If after having made sacrifices there is within the next five years no reduction in our unemployment figure, then the workers, are going to ask us, "What have we sacrificed our fringe benefits for?" Only the investors have become rich.”
“But, on the other hand, if the Minister is of the opinion that the answers to my three questions are "Yes", then I am prepared to accept this Bill in toto. This Government, I know, however, is too honest to give a dishonest reply. [Laughter] I do not stand here because some fringe benefits have been taken away from the workers, but if, as a result of the sacrifices made by them, there is overall benefit to Singapore, then I am all for it. Unfortunately, some of the sacrifices made by the workers would only go towards enriching some of the unenlightened employers who would invest their savings not in industries, but in their big houses and property, thereby increasing their own wealth without any direct benefit either to Singapore or to the workers. On the other hand, if the Government can assure us that savings will accrue as a result of this Bill by lowering production costs and that the profits made will be ploughed back into industry thereby increasing the work force, I am fully in support of the workers making sacrifices. It is also obvious that one of the objectives of this Bill is to increase the wealth of the country by attracting foreign investors because of lower production costs. The Government also hopes that these foreign investors will plough back their profits into industry, thereby increasing work opportunities for our school-leavers. Highly developed countries like Russia, America, England, West Germany and Japan have reached their present standards because of the utter exploitation of workers during the nineteenth century. The capitalists in those countries, while getting rich at the expense of the workers, did not forget to plough back their profits into industry. But the same cannot be said here in Singapore.”